museology revisited

DSC00008, originally uploaded by heart hath melted.

a recent trip to the art institute reawakened thoughts of environments constructed to facilitate some vague notion of cultural and personal fulfillment. what are people doing in museums? what does a stroll 'round the gallery do for them? and do we need to see the tangible *public* benefits of this visit in order for it to be rendered valuable to our culture as a whole?

i suppose i could devise all sorts of reasons people were at the art institute yesterday based on my observation of the patrons:
-- it is a stopping point on a tour of the city
-- it is simply pleasing to enter a space most wouldn't call their every-day environment. so, to gain new experience
-- to take a view of history (although it should be understood that history is constructed in a very specific way here)
-- to study art, especially painting, which is the dominant medium present at the art institute
-- to get inside from the cold outdoors
-- to practice drawing in a quiet controlled space (to study old masters)
-- to sit and think, and to be alone
-- to people-watch (my favorite experience)
-- to view new and interesting exhibits
-- to revisit our favorite works, take pleasure in them
-- to learn something from any one of these exhibits

i don't know if the value of museums in general is obvious enough to be articulated on some kind of universal level, and i highly doubt we can even make a hypothesis on the use of museums in chicago or any other region. i chose the photograph above to illustrate these notes because i still can't understand why the french impressionist galleries at the art institute are, hands-down the most popular at any given time (as are most of the modern european painting exhibits), because to me museums are truly successful when they achieve a specific function. to me, exhibits should at the very least bring to light something about the world the viewer does not already know.

this immediately brings to mind one of the most compelling ideas about museums i've come across, by mieke bal, paraphrased: one cannot see what one has not already learned to see. this is detrimental to the educative funciton of museums. but, i ask, does this cycle need to always be broken? is it just enough the people *come* to see the art, therefore preventing its obscurity? this is a question i have to wrestle with quite a bit more.

but here, people unwaveringly go to this exhibit which, in my opinion, can not speak directly to the experiences people have in their own lives. nor can most people look beyond the "prettiness" of french impressionism to see some kind of aesthetic revolution happening on the 19th century canvas.